Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (4169)	1/31/2001 12:32:38 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Good morning, E. You're in fine form this morning, I see. Karen

To: E who wrote (4169)	1/31/2001 12:33:24 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

excellent post

To: E who wrote (4169)	1/31/2001 4:48:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I suspect that a significant minority of Americans believe dogs shouldn't be used in scientific experiments. Well then perhaps the government should not be funding such research. I personally believe it can be of great benefit, but I never claimed that the government should fund anything I happen to find to be benefical or useful. What do the polls say about the BMD? What is BMD? A significant minority thought our engagement in the Vietnam war was rife with horrible human rights abuses. (Do you know how napalm worked? Have you heard of torture-training? Agent orange? My Lai?) In general, conservatives were gung ho about that war and often accused the significant minority of being traitors. Beliveing that abuses happened is not the same thing as being opposed to thinking that the war itself was a human rights abuse (you could fight the abuses without opposing the war and actions like the My Lai (sp?) massacre were hardly offical US policy), but I will grant that there was a pretty good level of oposition to the war. Wars are partially an exception to my idea because I do not think it is wise to jump in an out of wars do to shifts in the polls. If enough people are against the war for long enough the US should look for a way out. In regrads to the specific question of human rights abuses in Vietnam (rather then the orginal question of government funding of things that many feel are horrible human rights abuses), the abuse certainly got worse when the North took over an area. If polls show a majority of American citizens support foreign aid funding of family planning clinics in the third world, and oppose cutting off even birth control, even help for victims of botched abortions, in your opinion should Bush retract his Executive Order? I never said that the government should automatically fund anything that the majority of Americans want it to fund. (although in the long run policy tends to shift towards any strongly held majority opinion that is clearly and consistantly held). Do you personally believe abortion is a "horrible human rights abuse"? If so, does that include RU486? Yes and yes. If males started vomiting in the morning before they left for work and realized (with great distress; this was unplanned) that there was a fertilized ovum 1/100th of an inch long in their abdomens and that it was going to keep growing and growing until it weighed eight pounds and was a helpless, dependent human being that needed 24 hour a day care...do you think a safe and legal abortion would be considered by them or the law a horrible human rights abuse? I can not answer for other males. I can only answer for myself. My opinion would not change. BTW you do know that there are tens of millions of pro-life women right? Tim